Chinese Battery Powered Containership | 700 TEUs | Container Sized Replaceable Battery Packs

Chinese Battery Operated Containership
What's Going on With Shipping?
Aug, 2023
In this episode, Sal Mercogliano - maritime historian at Campbell University (@campbelledu) and former merchant mariner - discusses COSCO receiving the first 700 TEU battery powered containership for use on the Yangtze River and the innovative use of battery power packs.
#supplychain #container #battery #china #yangtze #containership
Support What's Going on With Shipping via:
Patreon: www.patreon.com/wgowshipping
Twitter: @mercoglianos
Facebook: @wgowshipping
Email: [e-mail]
Yara Debuts Yara Birkeland, the World’s First Autonomous and Emission-Free Containership
gcaptain.com/yara-birkeland-w...
China Launches First 700 TEU Electric Containership for Yangtze Service
www.maritime-executive.com/ar...

[@1337flite]

I can just see the first owner taking delivery at the yard: What!!!!??? 700 TEU, 10,000 tons and $30million and you're telling me batteris are not included!!!!

[@PapaTanGh0stNI9htM4R3S0nMaInSt]

👍😂 after a year batteries are a third of the cost of the vehicle.

[@STRUTZKOFF]

@@PapaTanGh0stNI9htM4R3S0nMaInSt the ship burns 3 x its value in diesel over its life

[@jimbeam2705]

@@STRUTZKOFF WHATS YOUR POINT???? LOL 😂

[@lummoxx8586]

Will need 35,000,000 AA batteries!

[@PapaTanGh0stNI9htM4R3S0nMaInSt]

@@STRUTZKOFF Hydrogen on demand.

[@mikeslattery7371]

reminds me of the electric buses demonstrator that some cities tried in the 80s with Lead Acid battery banks. The city buses pulled into the battery depot, swapped out the battery bank and the bank was maintained, conditioned and charged for 20-30 hours. Each bus had three packs if I recall-one in the bus being used, one being maintained and the other being charged.

[@brianslack6134]

There is a river craft plying between Rotterdam and a port in Belgium using the same battery idea...batteries placed in containers that can be removed for recharging and replaced later. The are planning to build 10 more. There are 8 TEU battery boxes on board, bur they represent 15% of the toatal carrying capacity of the vessel, name H2 Barge 1. You mentioned the weight of batteries if applied to a deep sea vessel..... DMV calcuklated that to provide power to drive the Regina Maersk, whose present fuel tank capacity is 18,615 m3, if converted to electric power would require a battery pack of 284 000 m3, and whose weight would be two-thirds greater than the actual cargo-carrying capacity of the ship.

[@nvelsen1975]

The immediate point of craft like this is to reduce local emissions. If you know Rotterdam you know it has the worst air quality besides Barneveld, and most of that is due to ships.

[@kbedn1395]

Simply saying, it is a battery carrier! LOL!

[@benedettobrunetto4439]

Wait, are you saying that the ship can’t even hold the amount of batteries it would need? Like it would need an additional diesel powered sister ship along side with 2/3 it’s cargo in batteries to power the EV ship? Well, if that is what you’re saying, we got a loooooong way to go.

[@nvelsen1975]

@@guenthermichaels5303 Why wouldn't it lower emissions to switch from inefficient combustion to efficient combustion? Your statement is mechanically impossible.

[@nvelsen1975]

@@guenthermichaels5303 THat doesn't answer the question. You claimed electric ships won't reduce emissions at all. How does that work? How do you swap a smaller ineffecient furnace for a better one in a powerplant without reducing emissions? That's aside from the point that you're talking BS and China's on a veritable solar revolution right now, but hey, let's make assumptions in your favour and ask how it would work?

[@Patty-qy8qh]

Genius, now ships don't need cars anymore to catch on fire🤯

[@andrewwoods8153]

There's always one conservative idiot who has nothing to contribute but your American we don't blame you.

[@kevinshortell7604]

The one question I always have when I hear of any autonomous vessel is "How do they comply with COLREGS or NAVRULES provisions to maintain a posted lookout?" I've always believed that a remote "lookout" would not be sufficient, only an onboard one. I am certainly curious about this. It could be a neat topic to cover in "What is Going on With Shipping?" As always, great content, Sal! :-)

[@blueocean2510]

New regulations are being examined, it will be challenging for normal shipping, to operate with ships without crews.

[@tstodgell]

It's a domestic riverboat in communist China. They don't comply with a darn thing.

[@georgepelton5645]

I was wondering the same thing. IIRC they are planning to have some minimal crew aboard, but they will not be navigating or operating the ship.

[@avid6186]

To me it makes more sense than a car trying to drive itself. Should start with trains, then off road vehicles like tractors and mining dumpers, then ships, planes and finally cars. This order due to the complexity of the environment they operate in.

[@nvelsen1975]

Actually, best I know, that is illegal across the EU, giving for example Tesla's beta software of 'Autopilot' a very dubious legality.

[@mattc.310]

The emissions measured at the vehicle Isn't a good measure on how green a system actually is. It's the total package that should be used for a realistic comparison. This is a novel test article and it will be interesting to see how things progress with it. I hope they have that battery design and handling down or things could get exciting on the Yangtze. Thanks for the update.

[@raven4k998]

yeah cause if the power plants makes emissions those still count for the electricity generation plain and simple unless they are generated from sources that are made emission free like clean made solar panels or clean made wind or hydro electric power as China still has coal and gas power plants in service so where the electricity is coming from matters to

[@StefOnBike]

The emissions are measured also on ICE vehicles on the vehicle, the production of the fuel is not taken into account. It is wrong on both sides, but on the ICE, people do not care.

[@kbedn1395]

Imagine the amount of fossil fuels used to charge this monstrous battery?

[@StefOnBike]

@@kbedn1395 less than driving with it directly

[@chriswilliams8607]

As electric vehicles will be 3 times more efficient overall savings are that huge that it is even a huge benefit if you charge with 100% coal power. China is investing heavily in renewable energy and has for years now the highest increases in renewables, so it will be better by the day.

[@minigpracing3068]

It should make a really impressive fire when the batteries go .

[@angrysoybean1012]

Maybe that's the reason the batteries are aft. Quick (dis)connector and submerge 'em in the the river. 😀 Don't get any idea , I just filed for the patent.

[@kingssuck06]

@@angrysoybean1012that’s wonderful for the river. So environmentally friendly

[@ghost307]

@@angrysoybean1012 They will still burn when underwater.

[@ginog5037]

What can possibly go wrong😮 At least the crane is close by, to dump the batteries overboard 😅

[@placeholdername0000]

Depends on the type of battery. Some types just don't burn very well.

[@JeffBilkins]

Didn't we just have a video about how electric battery fires are a nightmare? When this becomes a thing container terminals will have hundreds of these containers charging and moving around in various states of maintenance and quality.

[@for2utube]

With Lithium-based, it's more of an issue when charging. With these, I imagine with age there will be contact corrosion and localized heating/overheating issues.

[@Archangelm127]

I had the same thought.

[@drscopeify]

@@for2utube Well ships have thousands of electrical connectors and so much is exposed but good maintenance is key to everything.

[@alafrosty]

​@@drscopeifyincorrect. Design and battery management are more important in this particular use case.

[@alafrosty]

Yes, battery fires of this magnitude could last for days or even weeks!

[@bobbysenterprises3220]

I still don't see how it can be more ecological to produce power in shore, transport it to docks, store it for use over a long voyage vs having an efficient means of making the power on ship. Sure its zero emissions. But there's emissions somewhere else.

[@STRUTZKOFF]

they have mostly green energy up there so no emissions

[@cestmoi1262]

@@STRUTZKOFF Where is "up there"?

[@lummoxx8586]

@@dr5290 Need to factor in generation, line and conversion losses.

[@jonahhekmatyar]

​@@STRUTZKOFFup in china, lolol

[@Tschacki_Quacki]

It's a lot less emissions and they are more concentrated instead of spread out everywhere we live and breathe.

[@sealy3]

Can you imagine the conflagration that will inevitably happen when the battery catches fire?

[@sealy3]

Hope the ship is not carrying fertilizer!

[@dtyr123]

if that battery catches fire then the ship is gone period. if it was in a port then the port would end getting damaged in some way as well.

[@sealy3]

@@dtyr123 "KABOOM"

[@davidlancaster3144]

How did I know that would be among the first comments? And a very good question at that!

[@mitchmasterfix5292]

Maybe they set those rack up so they can dump an overheating battery container overboard.

[@jerrycann6374]

There is not only the coal power plants the mining of the elements used to make the battery adds alot to the pollution factor

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@dr5290 Recycling companies are short of cells to recycle in very large quantity, because? Not enough have reached end of life. . However, those that have..... 97+% materials recovered. . Cost? 1/6th (17%) the cost of mining and refining new raw material. (83% cheaper.... Try that with recycled oil....🤔) . Other benefit? The material recovered is *better* than the original stock. (It's been refined twice!) . Ref: JB Straubel, Redwood Materials. Already doing it. Really smart guy, former Chief Technical Officer at Tesla.... Knows his S*** . The internet is your friend.... If you use it.

[@Tschacki_Quacki]

@@dr5290 Of course it is the case. Since decades. That's why they get collected everywhere since decades. To make the recycling more easier, because it is indeed very expensive (not because battery recycling itself is expensive but consumer batteries come in such a big variety which makes it hard to scale the process). More than ~80% of battery material gets recycled and that already includes crappy batteries and older recycling facilities too. It's gonna be a lot more efficient with EV batteries cause there will be tons of batteries that are exactly the same.

[@davidjones5280]

The pollution factor from battery manufacturing is a small fraction of the pollution from burning crude oil for shipping, and it's reducing as energy supply emission levels reduce and mining techniques improve.

[@jerrycann6374]

@@davidjones5280 not even close

[@user-iq2yp1dn1q]

battery fire risk needs to be a unique concern for such ships, the fire would probably sink the ship and result in a pollution problem for the waterway especially for estuary or river routes. Also a concern for the ports where a large bank of battery catching fire would put the entire port out of service for a long time.

[@RedbadvanRijn-ft3vv]

A lot on YT on CCP EV Cars. I would not thrust 1 near my home.

[@paulstubbs7678]

I wonder if they could make a 'container ejector', yes ditching a dodgy container into the sea is bad, but not as bad as loosing an entire ship.

[@mfb424]

@@iantrofimov6416 The problem people are talking here is related to the thermal runaway of most li-ion cell types. It is considered too narrowely as chemistry issue while it is actually at the battery system level more than 80% an electrical issue (short circuit adds to the heat at shorted position which keep feeding the thermal load whicj eventually breaks oxygen free from its bonds in the material.) This risk of thermal runaway can be reduced with moren than 90% by using slow absorbtion rate electeode designs. Meaning battery cells which take 6 or more hours to charge. If battery cell is made like that it also takes hours to discharge even in short circuit situation. Hence risk of fire is almost completely removed. This is how battery powered shipping can be made very safe and cost effective (low power cells are also cheaper to make). So Halon can do about nothing. Water connection to containers would be better. Just flood the box if there is malfunction. And that’s it. No fire.

[@silverdale3207]

@@iantrofimov6416 From everything I've read there is no way to extinguish a battery in thermal runaway ,maybe newer tech may solve that. Still looks extremely inefficient though.

[@MatthijsvanDuin]

@@iantrofimov6416 Halon is rather misunderstood; it's actually very suitable when you have a crew since a small percentage of Halon in air puts out any normal fire while being perfectly safe to breathe for a while (although you should still GTFO sinces fires tend to produce toxic smoke). Systems that *are* potentially very dangerous to crews are total flooding systems that use inert gas, but they are nevertheless in active use today. The problem with Halon is that it's terrible for the ozone layer, and the Montreal protocol forbids any new production. Of course neither Halon nor inert gas will stop a li-ion fire, at most they'd be of use to try to prevent the fire from spreading to the rest of the ship.

[@johncooper4637]

I am always disturbed by the "green zero emissions" label. How much CO2 was expended to mine the ores of lithium, cobalt, etc? How much was produced when the ores were smelted, refined and finished? And, as you stated, there is the matter of the coal fired power plants that produce the electricity to charge the batteries.

[@RealShawnPate]

One problem at a time, that's how you solve them all. First of all, I personally don't buy the whole CO2 narrative, but assuming this was a problem to be solved. Battery powered ships would be a good start. Then you address power generation. Then you solve the supply chain. One step at a time. Not having all the answers is never a good excuse for doing nothing. You do what you can when you can.

[@helmshardover]

@@RealShawnPate In parrallel, China is installing solar farms at the fastest rate of any country.

[@Mythicalniceguy]

Also the fact that the batteries can’t be recycled either. It’s worse for the environment exponentially than moving towards nuclear.

[@RealShawnPate]

@@Mythicalniceguy it's really difficult to profitably recycle batteries, and not 100% of the material is retrieved, but aren't virtually all batteries recyclable?

[@helmshardover]

@@Mythicalniceguy Of course that's not true. They can recycle 90+%.

[@sonishankar6008]

You have to appreciate China"s approach to green energy....one of the best innovators with serious motivation.....

[@rokadamlje5365]

So to recalculate: 50000 kwh at average .1kwh per kg is 500tons. Tho cells usually range .15 to .2 kwh/kg so that is including the container. At 2MW operating power this ship can sail for 2 days at full power. And since COSCO is a shipping company it will be for their internal use?

[@billycan8852]

This is a great idea well done to China. Hope lots of these are made 👍

[@lyleparadise2764]

So this ship could conceivably carry the coal to the power plant so it can create the electricity necessary to charge it's batteries. Seriously though, it's a new idea and i hope it works for them.

[@NoName-zn1sb]

its batteries

[@peterjackson2625]

I wish I was smart enough to think of that one!

[@burkevinell]

This is good that people are exploring options. Different operations can use different approaches to solving energy problems.

[@kellikelli4413]

Tesla (the scientist) solved the energy issue years ago - but free and affordable is not what today's thieves want .

[@RealShawnPate]

Yup. Even if this doesn't work at all, we'll learn a lot from this exercise. Things like how local populations and industry reacts to something new can't be guessed in a lab and have to come from physical experience.

[@roberttagg67]

Swappable battery packs are not exactly a new idea. But it is a great application for a short voyage conatinership. The very short voyage (like ferries) is the key to making batteries work, as even 5% of the cargo space for batteries is only good for a small fraction on the 600 nm route. You need to swap at least once and probably twice a day (every 100 nm) for this COSCO ship. Our (Herbert Engineering) 2019 study for ABS showed that a 16 knot, 2000 TEU, feeder containerships (typical for north Europe) with only a one-day 24 hour (400 nm) range would have to carry about 10% of the cargo deadweight for batteries. Most existing ships in this category have 4 or 5-day ranges.

[@waltershoults8803]

It’s gonna be a spectacular fiery spectacle 🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@zapfanzapfan]

It's a good start. Batteries make sense on slow vessels travelling where there are ample charging opportunities. Hope to see some on the rivers and canals in Europe. BTW, I think the Swedish car ferries at Helsingborg-Helsingör are still the largest battery powered ships. Very short trips and recharged with about 10MW during the few minutes they spend in port.

[@ianstobie]

Going back to the time sail was replaced by steam, the adoption of steam followed a similar pattern. First it came in on rivers, for high value applications like gambling paddle steamers. These were able to stop frequently for new supplies of wood and water along the river shore. Next steam started coming in for things like tugs and pilot boats, where power or speed and all-weather operation were important benefits, but range requirement were limited and refueling facilities were available nearby in the home port. Steam boats evolved, so eventually (very large) steamships could do the Atlantic crossing. Even then, no steamship could match sailing clippers on very long, fast tea voyages from China and India to western markets. But worldwide steam transport arrived once the colonial powers established a worldwide network of coal refueling bunkers. These needed to be roughly 400 miles apart, so once the refueling bunkers existed steamships could plan routes across the globe. The advantage over sail was reliability, predictability and often speed.

[@johncheresna]

Thanks, I am not a Chinese/CCP expert, but this seems more about face than anything. You are correct, it is emissions free except the coal used to charge it, so in reality, it is coal fired. IMHO.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

IF there's "coal used to charge it, that's the same coal used to produce the electricity which refined the oil for fuel. . Think it through. . smh

[@barba928]

@@LobstersLobsters Fair enough. A single coal plant is more efficient than many smaller ones but there is still the massive environmental hit of lithium/cobalt mining. Unless ships use wind or nuclear, all this posturing by being electric is bullshit to impress naive westerners.

[@andrewwoods8153]

Agreed the naysayers never think things through, bit like the Republicans and Strumpet.

[@johncheresna]

@@LobstersLobsters OK samrtass. Usually Natural gass is used in refineries. Much, Much cleaner than coal. Also China burns more Iignite (a very dirty coal) and they virtualy no emission laws, so their coal plants are several time more dirty than western ones. And they are building at least one a month.

[@Lin-De]

​@@johncheresnaYou sure there isn't? Then what is GB 13223-2011?

[@gavindavies793]

So total installed power is around 3000hp, on par with a WW2 Type VII u-boat, which had a range of over 9,000 miles on around 100 tons of fuel oil. Meanwhile, this thing, equipped with no less than 36 TEUs of batteries still needs atleast one quick change recharging stop on a 600 mile river route? Wow, truly game changing.... 😂

[@Commander-McBragg]

Very cool! You are on it, Sal. Thanks

[@CuriousEarthMan]

great info Sal, thanks for keeping us up to date! Big, long-term changes often start small.

[@jimcarlson2252]

Thanks!

[@timoliver8940]

It will be interesting to see the stern trim and the hull stresses with no cargo and 36 x approx 20t TEU’s sat on the stern………. Think of all the North American and European inland / river / sheltered waters routes these could travel on too.

[@justinsmith2363]

Did you run the numbers to come up with 20 tons? I would have guessed that the weight of a battery container would actually exceed the 28 ton TEU maximum.

[@mfb424]

@@justinsmith2363no. It’s 22t total. It would be not smart to go above the standards. Handling and transporting would become an issue in general. Those containers are the same which are used as grid tied BESS due cost efficiency.

[@ferdis7]

Can't wait to see one of these catch fire...

[@petervanderwaart1138]

When a historial analogy is appropriate, Sal.never fails.

[@mendel5106]

125K subs. Congratulations!

[@joshuapatrick682]

I feel like the issue with going 100% (or even a fraction of that in reality) EV is the strain it will place on the antiquated grid and commercial/residential energy production so much so that honestly a whole separate electrified infrastructure will be required that runs from new power generation stations (which theoretically should be nuclear energy to maximize the ecological impact). I find it fascinating that more electricity will be required than ever before however no one seems to care about the strain this will place on the already fragile power grid.

[@Tschacki_Quacki]

Don't know where you live but where I live the power grid is not fragile. Research how much power private crypto mining was using from 2019-2021. Zero problems in developed countries despite an enormous demand of power that was present.

[@Blackburnian737]

Keep in mind most power grids have expanded from literally nothing (early 20th century) to where they are today, so expanding them to serve the additional power needs of electrifying things is actually quite reasonable and in line with what happened previously, especially in U.S./Europe where population growth has slowed.

[@andrewwoods8153]

Great story, research and proving up is all part of the transition.

[@promisel1964]

just imagine the banks of batteries that will be needed for each ship at each stop and if there is a fire onboard from the batteries or with the batteries, not to mention the amount of materials needed to construct these batteries for this niche use as i 'm sure they will be using the same materials used for car batteries and heavy trucks

[@joshuapatrick682]

there's also the incredibly destructive aspect of mining the minerals that will make up the batteries in the modular power cells. So is this really net carbon negative? I know ships burn a lot of fossil fuels but this one will still be doing so by burning coal to generate electricity to charge them.

[@ThisRandomUsername]

Mining carbon intensity is typically accounted for in the calculations on when an electric car will be overtaken. Also, there's no word what chemistry they're going for, so mining could be a non-issue. Regarding actual coal-based CO2 emmissions I think you may have a point: large diesel engines in ships tend to be very efficient. Car engines are much more inefficient than ship engines, so the advantages of electric drive are a bit more diminished.

[@ThisRandomUsername]

Sorry, I can't edit on my mobile browser. I mean electric car batteries are quite carbon intensive to mine for, but that is usually overtaken by 50000km of driving a petrol car. People have done studies. The argument against electric car batteries is usually not one of carbon intensity, but rather slave labour when mining cobalt. That's not a problem for LiFePO4. To be honest I think they would be stupid to make these batteries out of lithium at all.

[@robertlevine2152]

Sal, I am really happy that I am retired. I am so happy that I don't have to deal with all this foolishness. As you have said many times water transportation is the most efficient method to move goods. Somewhere, somehow, we lost sight of maximizing the efficiency of the transportation system and started to focus on reaching a zero carbon footprint. Instead of focusing on hull efficiency, propeller efficiency, reducing resistance, and wave making, or squeezing a little more efficiency out of the machinery, we're looking to use ammonia for fuel or to use batteries. Guess what ammonia leakage can be deadly. Oh yeah, that was why we switched to Freon for refrigeration. I still haven't figured out how the efficiency of using battery power. Scenario A, we use a diesel engine to drive a shaft, which turns the propeller. Scenario B, electricity is generated at some power source (wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, fuel oil, natural gas, coal, or some other method) for transmission. The electricity is then sent through transmission lines to a charging station. Batteries get charged either shoreside or onboard and power electric motors, which turn a shaft, which turns the propeller. It seems, at least when I was taught, there is a lot more energy loss in Scenario B. And, let's not forget the recent battery fires. There have been too many lives lost. Plus there is also a large number of hazardous materials released by the burning batteries. Bob

[@helmshardover]

Scenario B does not take fuel out of the ground direct into the ships tanks.

[@danmorrissette4814]

Pretty cool! !! very interesting!!

[@nathanryweck3137]

I don't know how I found this but fascinating idea. I think for bigger ocean going ships, they will need a hybrid approach until batteries get a lot better.

[@nvelsen1975]

Might be good to dust off the idea of sails/kite-sails for cargo ships too. 2-10% fuel savings will be nothing to sneeze at if otherwise it has to be batteries.

[@obsidianjane4413]

@@nvelsen1975 I am surprised that this isn't a featured part of this.

[@nathanryweck3137]

Some combination of wind and solar could probably work with a backup generator.

[@francisphillipeck4272]

I just imagine that thing burning floating in some port somewhere.... Its only a matter of time until it burns, same with EV's. EV's catch fire when their batteries get damaged in the vehicle where they would theoretically protected the best, these batteries for these ships are in containers or something? And they need to be moved around by cranes in the air?!? These dudes loading ships can't keep an EV from catching fire, what makes you think they will be able to handle those batteries and not damage them and cause a fire???? Think about it...lol

[@dougfisher7197]

Always enjoy your videos. Have learned a lot about ocean shipping. I may have missed it, but wonder if the elements of the Ports of LA/LB labor agreement have been made public. Am very curious what automation agreements were included. We have to figure out a way to become more automated and more efficient. Thanks. Doug Fisher

[@georgepelton5645]

Sal, Thanks for this video. It is great to hear your thoughts on this ship. It certainly will be interesting to watch it in operation and see if it makes sense to build battery powered ships this large.

[@AllNighterHeider]

I see the rudders, but man, its really difficult for me to see that as house forward and not house aft. And like you mentioned, the batteries, they look like theyre very far aft and really high above the water line, looks like a roller with all that ballast so high. Thanks Sal

[@patrickmckowen2999]

Very interesting 👍

[@theinfernalcraftsman]

Larger vessels will require less batteries than a smaller one percentage wise. Because as we know as ships get larger the become more efficient requiring less energy to push them through the water per ton. Which is why ships keep getting bigger. Now I hope they have a way to jettison those batteries. We can't get small battery packs in cars safe enough to travel across the ocean without taking out ships and now we are going to make massive and numerous batteries that are in use as the ship is transiting and think all is safe. That said it looks like a good place to start and see what happens and having those batteries where they are they are accessible to monitor and put out. Hopefully they have installed monitors and pumps so they can remotely drench them when one goes bad.

[@jimbeam2705]

LOL 😂, can't wait to see the impact when one catches fire and sinks.

[@rickymherbert2899]

My concern looking at those battery cells is what is going to be the stability of the vessel with all that battery weight so far above the waterline? Especially if the cargo was made up of a majority of empty TEUs.

[@davidjones5280]

So you think a responsible naval designer is going to design an inherently unstable ship? Or that a responsible operator would accept it? Or that the insurers would insure it?

[@hillogical]

Interesting idea on the containerized batteries. Who pays to store the containers as they are being charged? How are the stored after being charged? How do those batteries get to the ports when they need them? This would be ok for internal waters, but if you want to go international it can be a logistic nightmare. Just a couple years ago we learned how fragile normal container supply can be.

[@mfb424]

Containers are charged in special locations next to renewable generation assets. While they charge those batteries provide grid balancing services. Meaning they are being paid while charging. That is highly profitable business nowadays.

[@hillogical]

@@mfb424 Which ports have renewable generation close by? It is nice to say such things, but I doubt reality matches their marketing materials.

[@mfb424]

@@hillogical I have had discussions with several ports and many are seeking for solutions for ground power connections with all kinds of ships. During these negotiations we also have discussed about arranging this energy to the site. Car ports are no-brainers as solar canopies protect also cars. Huge lots of cars reserve land with no other use. But this is just one case. For many other ports which do not have this opportunity something else is needed. I think those empty battery containers can be taken on separate ship which takes 1000-5000 TEU next to off shore wind farms to be charged. Or just dock somewhere next to good grid connection. Nothing says thou that those containers could not just sit at the port and be charged there over time. Say in week or two.

[@benedettobrunetto4439]

I love this channel. Im a shrink, I have zero to do w/ the maritime, logistics, shipping, or similar industries. I’ve always loved those industries and mass transportation is just fascinating to me. I also love learning about shipping and Sal makes it easy to understand and interesting for not only people like me, but I would imagine major stake holders in the shipping industry.

[@wgowshipping]

Thanks for sharing!

[@pcnz]

Three Gorges Dam is on the river where this will be operating. That is the worlds largest hyroelectric dam. Most of the electricity is renewable in that area, from the dam not from coal. So there should be no concerns about that.

[@zolikoff]

It's amazing how nations all over the world will tie themselves into knots with all kinds of "alternative propulsion" methods for big ships when we've had the best possible propulsion method for several decades now and almost everyone simply refuses to use it.

[@jamesphillips2285]

Nuclear? Very hard to design a system that prevents nations states from diverting material for weapons. Military vessels of nuclear powers are able to do it: because they are already nuclear powers.

[@LackofFaithify]

Yeah but the potential death or injury from that source is flashy and scary. Black lung, air pollution, eternal underground hell fires, drinking water you can set on fire, few dozen or hundred types of cancer, refinery explosions, wars: these tings are just daily part of life that happen somewhere else and no one ever stops to add up that sort of number because it makes the body count from both bombs look tiny. But I mean, mushroom clouds, too risky.

[@j_taylor]

Yes, I think wind power will come back for shipping that isn't so time-sensitive I wonder what fraction of total cost goes to fuel these days.

[@zolikoff]

@@jamesphillips2285 Nations can design their own propulsion and their own weapons. Neither requires the other.

[@johanea]

There is a reason why steam killed wind power and diesel killed steam power.

[@placeholdername0000]

One advantage of these batteries is that you can charge them where and when you want to. You could, theoretically, have a train carrying 100 battery containers out to a nearby solar farm/nuclear plant and charge them with excess electricity. Which would enable more clean energy and it would reduce the strain on the ports grid connection.

[@robertf3479]

Zero carbon ship? Excellent point about the source of the electricity used to recharge those batteries Sal.

[@obsidianjane4413]

Nuk'ler powah!

[@pcnz]

Except he missed the fact the The Three Gorges dam is on the river its operating on. The largest hydro electric dam in the world. Pretty sure they will be using electricity from that not coal to recharge this thing.

[@Tropikaybay]

China is leading the world with clean technology.

[@nothandmade9686]

China's green washing is legendary. I wouldn't serve on a ship with that many tonnes of Chinese batteries.

[@Peizxcv]

This is actually really smart since the boat always have access to crane wherever they are docked

[@SteamCrane]

I keep thinking of the ethanol idiocy. Making ethanol from corn requires massive quantities of water, and a huge amount of energy input, bad enough. But there have been a significant number of ethanol train derailments that resulted in massive black smoke fires. One derailment in our area belched voluminous black smoke for a week. Another one on a bridge near Pittsburgh melted the bridge, which collapsed. How many carbon credits are needed to compensate for that?

[@crabby7668]

And ethanol in petrol/gas makes that volume less efficient with a lower energy content, so you need more fuel for the same output with all the knock on from transporting all of the extra ethonolised fuel, as well as the production of the ethonol itself. Yet another example of green washing actually being less efficient and more damaging to the environment than the process it was replacing. But don't expect the eco grifters or their idiot politician lackeys to admit it.

[@jeraldsamuel5598]

Chocolate teapots are a novel idea, but for some reason never caught on 🤔

[@BurchellAtTheWharf]

I wonder when there gonna bring back masted cargo carriers?

[@crabby7668]

There was a movement to do that several decades ago, but although at least one ship was built/converted it doesn't seem to have got anywhere. Maybe having large rigid sails in the way when loading/unloading made it difficult to sell in the real world.

[@LackofFaithify]

Just the amount of energy to run the cooling system for that sort of setup will be pretty hefty, unless there is some sort of open loop water setup going on and would come with its own fun complications. Coal powered to charge (and the lithium extraction and battery production process isn't exactly, well, green) and I just have this odd feeling there will be more than one that gets dumped off the side. Can't help but wonder if a sail or live rail might be better if it needs to be planned on water flow (mostly joking). What sort of speed are they claiming?

[@silverdale3207]

Although fairly unreliable maybe going back to sails is the only really green option, some pretty impressive solid sails out there now when you look at the Americas cup boats. They'd have to be smaller but I've seen some decent size modern sailing ships. I don't see electric as any more environmentally sustainable. Logically they'd just stick with fuel , seems to work just fine.

[@glenmartin2437]

Thank you, Sal. What to do when these batteries transform to incinderaries??!!??

[@SimonTekConley]

So in 10 years, the sail powered ships will be very popular again

[@alansnyder8448]

I came here to make a snarky comment about China recharging the batteries with coal, but you had it covered. :) Interesting idea to use container-sized batteries.

[@georgepelton5645]

Sal, As you point out China does not have to import coal, and they can use that to generate electricity. What you forgot to point out is that China does have to import petroleum. So this switch is a win for China's national security. Don't get too enamored with battery electric stuff being "green." That is only one potential benefit.

[@Houthiandtheblowfish]

smart point it is pr and good tactically strategic benefitial for them

[@kenharris5390]

They should call it the Ever Ready.

[@bc-guy852]

Brilliant comment!

[@yuglesstube]

I'd say it would make more sense right now to force ship owners to use better quality fuels.

[@PapaTanGh0stNI9htM4R3S0nMaInSt]

Converting many ships to hydrogen on demand would be better.

[@ajobdunwell2585]

Modern engines are a lot more efficient, and run cleaner because of that.

[@Mentaculus42]

⁠@@PapaTanGh0stNI9htM4R3S0nMaInSt How about ammonia as a hydrogen carrier? Or just use Renewable NG. Seems like batteries are only good for the “low hanging fruit” and generally shipping needs higher density energy storage than batteries can provide.

[@yuglesstube]

@@ajobdunwell2585 I read that shipowners are refusing to use cleaner fuels for cost reasons. Nasty bunker fuels are cheap.

[@yuglesstube]

@@PapaTanGh0stNI9htM4R3S0nMaInSt you haven't thought that through, have you.

[@LoremIpsum1970]

Kewl, that'll burn well...🔥 Re-cover this in a year or so...see if it works and that this isn't a ''stunt'.

[@Pippy626]

Hard to know much without voltage of battery pack and motors. If we went with normal voltage of high KV motors it would be 2214hp and runtime of ~36 hours .8 to 1 hour per battery pack

[@morthomer5804]

Wondering how fast battery terminal connections will corrode (and ignite)?

[@robrietow7321]

Are they really saving anything? The batteries have to be charged. What is the relationship between the energy and emissions of charging the batteries and what would be used by a normally powered vessel?

[@keepitsimpleengineer]

Interesting points ~ shore-based coal-fired power generation plants can be equipped with emission reduction apparatus to reduce air pollution, with emphasis on 'can'. Thermal efficiency can be higher than marine diesel powerplants, again focusing on 'can'. Shore-based power generation can provide power for other uses giving opportunities for economy-of-scale load matching. Remains to be seen, however.... ... .. .

[@alexandermckay8594]

It's noticeable that the battery complex is outside, not enclosed. Interesting concept. BTW, the batteries won't be quite as heavy as you think. LiPO is much lighter than lead acid batteries and a large amount of the weight with the current EV's is armour to prevent piercings. Remains to be seen on what a 20TEU battery container actually weighs.

[@wingman1392]

the Model S P85’s battery pack has a capacity of 90 kWh and weighs over 530 kgs. So 50,000kWh (50Mega Watt hours) (50,000/90)*530=300,000kg= 300ton. About 15ton per TEU. ish. very ish.. Is that heavy for a TEU?

[@grooviefan]

@@wingman139220 foot TEU’s are rated just under 30K lbs.

[@Tschacki_Quacki]

The weight was the whole battery package, incl. housing, cooling, etc which would be optimized for larger capacities. You don't need those components the same way every 85kWh. So we can't just scale that number up.

[@SteamCrane]

@@wingman1392 What is that in real units?

[@vedranb87]

That's a fun prospect. Who's to say a couple of those containers couldn't be diesel-electric generators for emergencies? What I see as problematic is if one of those containers experiences a thermal runaway event, it could end up really badly as I don't see a simple way for the crew to do anything to remove those from the sockets mid voyage. Every battery should be subject to rigorous inspections prior to being put on a ship.

[@pforce9]

Batteries make sense in cars because cars sometime coast and sometime go downhill. Nautical engines do not get a break. Boats and ships are always pushing uphill. I think that sailboats are the best candidates for battery power. There is a ship that has a parasail that can be deployed for crossing oceans. That might work with batteries.

[@jimbeam2705]

LOL 😂, sh0ve your EVs.

[@ThePlayerOfGames]

Electric motors are perfect for this application since the only maintenance is bearings. It isn't going to get degraded from the consecutive detonations of a fossil system.

[@pforce9]

@@ThePlayerOfGames Electric motors are fine. It is the batteries that do not like the constant high power demand of a boat engine.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@pforce9 Batteries LOVE a "constant power demand" You adjust the capacity to suit demand.

[@pforce9]

@@rogerstarkey5390 I don't think so. A heavy constant drain does not sound good for batteries.

[@crapmalls]

Looking forward to the first battery powered ghost ship

[@daewooparts]

That's going to be one big fire 🔥, hopefully if it goes up in a blaze of glory it will be way out in the sea & not in a port

[@singaporeseaslugs1393]

Hmm how does this compare to duel fuel engines? Will electrified propulsion be more common in port waters or will it be foreign shipping as well? In singapore, there is a push for 100% electrifying our port vessels if not it will be a dual system such as a hybrid. How does this change the role of a marine engineer? From a mechanical/control engineer to a more electrical focused one?

[@Just_Johnnie]

Won’t the ship be top heavy? Also, the power grids and the power plants required to service a fleet of ships like that?

[@peter_smyth]

4:20 The capacity is 50'000 kWh, don't forget the hours, otherwise that's a measure of power (how fast it's using the energy).

[@gregtaylor3432]

I wonder if the charging schedule would permit solar recharging? (IE the exchange/charging facility recharged the cell with solar power) For example; If the schedule was such that the cell was available for recharge for 10 times as long as it was "in battery"(pun intended) might this be possible?

[@Diamond_Hanz]

Rip ocean. We have a fire burning on water!

[@BurchellAtTheWharf]

1:41 solar panels would help. But im very interested in the possibility of ev diesel fer a commercial fishing boats

[@ericlee8231]

How long befor it catches on fire

[@louisianahighball4705]

Diesel and oil float when spilled. What is battery acid gonna do?

[@hamjudo]

Grid scale energy storage units are typically 20ft shipping containers with 4 (or more) megawatt hours of capacity and an AC grid interconnect rated at 1 (or more) megawatt. The version for shipping will have a similar energy storage capacity, but posibly with a lower power and a much cheaper DC power interconnect. These are almost certainly made in the same factories as the grid storage units. Companies that buy and sell gigawatt hours of electricity each year do it on exchanges with very dynamic pricing. When the sun is shining, the wind is blowing, and power demand is moderate, wholesale electrity prices may drop below $0.02 per kilowatt hour. Coal power is never that cheap. The ship's batteries will be charged with the lowest cost electricity available. In most areas, that means renewable sources. In order to get the cheapest electricity, the batteries will need to charge intermittently, based on the spot price. They may use stock grid storage units on the first couple of ships. Those can be directly connected to the grid for charging.

[@bc-guy852]

That's very well thought out and presented. I concur - this is like the Apollo Program compared to Starship... It's a start. A pretty smart one I think.

[@quietlistener7054]

I'm worried about total lifespan as well. How long will the batteries last before needing replaced/renewed/recycled? What in the plan for that process? Most ice engines can last years and years with minimal material impact outside of emissions produced. Can these do better? We need holistic solutions and large ships can tap into scale much better, so many more options to choose from for clean running shipping.

[@billhanna2148]

So basically, you need an insta solution when the current fossil fuels solution is perfect and holistic

[@martylawson1638]

Sounds like they'll have a set of batteries trickle-charging at most ports they land at. Therefor, I'd expect 1-2 cycles per round-trip of the ship. So cycle life won't be an issue. Calendar life, depends on how hard they push the cells and how well they're climate controlled. Charged to 80% and kept cool, they'll probably last decades and be replaced as obsolete before they fail.

[@phil20_20]

What an explosive idea! 💥 Oh, the humanity! - Once they figure out the NOx problem, hydrogen ICEs will replace a lot of battery power.

[@obsidianjane4413]

But what about the comparison between the weight and volume (displacement) of the batteries and traditional fuel tanks for comparable range. Also the cost of reharge of batts vs. bulk fuel per hr. etc.

[@chrisbrown1462]

Could see this on the Mississippi - maybe battery powered tugs. Charge the batteries at night when the grid has surplus power - or if solar gives a surplus during the day. Then down the road switch over to better battery tech or fuel cells without loosing the investment in the ship itself.

[@kbedn1395]

This one will burn nicely! Great fireworks for Chinese New Year! Good job guys! Hopefully it will catch fire in the middle of Pacific and quickly sink. Of course give enough time for the crew to evac.

[@Nerd3927]

With a Battery that size, having a vessel with out crew would be a good idea! How long would that vessel burn?

[@louf7178]

Battery replacements was my idea when EVs were starting to take hold. Sure, people would complain about the idea, and there is the issue of getting a used battery after just buying a new car, but hey, look, China implemented it (although it is a slightly different scenario). But getting a standard battery replaced in five minutes compared to building restaurants and eating while charging as a solution seems _a tad_ more practical. Standard sized batteries with varying parallel installations for different sized cars. Possible pro-rate the cost by individual battery health to normalize cost/quality of the swap you get from the station. Recycling would be more readily handled.

[@williamdundon9770]

Thanks for the info I think it would be a little naive to think there isn’t a place for battery power. I like how you didn’t automatically hate the idea. Even though I want to hate battery powered cars. There’s still a place for them.

[@dickdaley9059]

Dr Sal, what do you guess the carbon footprint will be when this mountain of batteries catches fire? 🇺🇸⚓️

[@jamesphillips2285]

4:20 The containers are 50,000kWh not 50,000kW. at 2MW (both screws running at full power +) they would last 90 seconds.

[@retireeelectronics2649]

Had a good chuckle on this. Was thinking of the CCP automonous tracter. Like the environmental part thou Coal mined --> coal burned for electricity --> transmission loss along power lines --> recharge loss to charge batteries ( Lithium +mining and processing for batteries environmental factor) --> energy spent on equipment loading the batteries and replacing on route. And hopefully we have watched your videos on EV car fires in RoRo ships. China makes excellent fireworks, just don't store near anything you want to keep.

[@TheFunkybert]

So what happens when the battery powered cargo catches fire on the battery powered vessel?

[@NoOneToNoOne89]

Something about a transportation ship full of EV batteries catching fire comes to mind….

[@angrysoybean1012]

"Simply" open the valve an submerge it 😃 It's in a river after all.

[@jimbeam2705]

Exactly, and at least that one didn't sink. YET.

[@kingssuck06]

@@angrysoybean1012Its so comical to me that this ship was purpose built to be “green” and “environmentally friendly” and everyone’s solution to the battery fire problem is to just dump them in whatever body of water they happen to be sailing in.

[@JinKee]

How would a crew do damage control on the batteries if damaged in an unrestricted submarine warfare scenario? Will there be autonomous ships with just no crew and no damage control?

[@fakename8856]

Batteries are NOT a power source, they are an energy storage. Electricity is also not an energy source, but an energy vector. These are powered by mostly coal and natural gas power plants.

[@saurabhkatarey6818]

Can anyone tell what kind of battery used? LFP, NMC. or LTO? I think mostly LTO because of safety factor.

[@edwardcaseyjr5490]

Great video, how many U S ports fire departments are ready for a ship like this. How do fight a fire like that sink the ship?a electric car fire requires 40,000 gallons of water what would a ship?